Hollinger Corp. 
P H 8.5 



BT 215 
.D7 

Copy 1 



Sty* Itutmtg 



3g 

Kromtift Walter iram, 5. 3. 



The Divinity of Christ 



® 



One of a Series of Lectures on the Fundamentals 
of Faith, delivered in the Brooklyn Academy 
of Music, before the Brooklyn Institute 
of Arts and Sciences* by 

REV. WALTER DRUM, S. J., 

Professor of Scripture, Woodstock College 



WOODSTOCK COLLEGE PRESS 
MARYLAND 
1917 



Imprimi potest : 

A. J. MAAS, S.J., 

Praep. Prov. 
30 Jan. 1917. 



Imprimatur : 

JAMES CARDINAL GIBBONS, 

Archbishop of Baltimore. 

2 Febr. 1917. 



Tenth Thousand. 
Price, 5 cents apiece ; $3.00 the hundrec 



JUN It 1917 



THE DIVINITY OF CHRIST. 1 



Ladies and Gentlemen : 

In our previous lectures, the subject was "The 
answer of the Protestant schools of Theology to 
the question 'What think ye of Christ'?" The 
question was put by our Blessed Saviour to the 
Pharisees. We have put that same question to the 
professors of the great universities and important 
seminaries, whom we have cited to you as mem- 
bers of the various schools of Christology. Few, 
very few of them give the answer of the tradi- 
tional school. And so we may rightly call this 
answer, the answer of the Catholic school of 
Theology, the answer of the school of the Lord 
Jesus Christ. 

Understand me, the Protestant laity still cling 
to belief in the Divinity of Christ. And there are 
ministers of the gospel, in the Protestant sects, 
who still teach the Divinity of Christ. But in the 
great universities, in the Protestant faculties of 
the seminaries and universities of note, in Ger- 
many, England and the United States, the Divini- 
ty of Christ is no longer taught. Against these 

1 One of a series of lectures on the fundamentals of faith, 
delivered in the Brooklyn Academy of Music, Dec. 1915, before 
the Brooklyn Institute of Arts and Sciences, by Rev. Walter 
Drum, S. J., Professor of Scripture, Woodstock College. 



men has my invective been, and not against those 
who belong to the traditional school of Chris- 
tology. 

I. Early Heresies. 

The answer of the traditional school is this : 
"What think ye of Christ? He is very God and 
very Man." This answer was first called forth by 
the infallible declaration of the Church in the 
Council of Nicaea, 325 of our era. Arius had set 
the heresy agog that there was in Christ a person 
whose nature was human, — at any rate was not 
Divine, — was at most a halfway between the 
human and the Divine. This heresy was con- 
demned by the infallible declaration of the Church 
in the Council of Nicaea, which defined the Di- 
vinity 7 of the single person of Christ, and his 
twofold nature. 

Later Nestorius started a new form of heresy. 
He taught that, in Jesus, there was the human 
person, and therefore a human nature ; and also 
a .Divine person with a Divine nature. This 
heresy was condemned by the infallible Church, 
which in the Council of Ephesus (431 A. D.) 
defined the oneness and Divinity of the single 
person, Jesus the Christ; and the physical unity 
in this Divine Person, of the double nature, human 
and Divine, of the Word made Flesh. 

Later another heresy took rise. By the anathe- 
ma of Nicaea, the Church had made it impossible 



4 



to teach, in the sense of Arius, that in Jesus there 
is no Divine Person and no Divine nature. In 
Ephesus, the Church had condemned the opinion 
of Nestorius that in Jesus there are two persons 
and two natures. Was there room for more 
heresy? Yes, Eutyches saw a loophole. He 
taught that in Jesus there is only one person, the 
Divine, and only one nature, the Divine. Against 
him the infallible Council of Chalcedon (451 A. 
D.) launched her anathema. The Council defined 
still more clearly that, in Jesus, there are two dis- 
tinct natures, the Divine and the human, physi- 
cally united in one Divine Person, and yet not 
merged into one nature. 

What more ? Since the two natures of Jesus 
were physically united in one Divine Person, what 
handle for heresy remained? One handle more! 
Three of the Oriental patriarchs, — Sergius, the 
Patriarch of Constantinople, Cyrus, the Patriarch 
of Alexandria, and Athanasius, the Patriarch of 
Antioch, — joined their patriarchal power in one 
last effort of the erring Orient to destroy the 
great mystery of faith. They had to admit with 
Nicaea, Ephesus and Chalcedon, that one Divine 
Person, Jesus the Christ, had two natures, the 
Divine and the human, physically united in one 
hypostasis or person. But they resented the mys- 
tery of a perfect man who was not a human per- 
son. They withdrew from the perfection of the 
human nature of Jesus. They taught that in Jesus 



5 



there was no human activity ; that the activity of 
the human nature was merged into the activity of 
the Divine; that, in Jesus, there was only the 
activity of the Divine nature ; that, in Jesus, there 
was only one activity and one will, and that ac- 
tivity and that one will were Divine. Against 
this heresy, the Council of Constantinople (680 
A. D.) defined the perfection of the human nature 
of Christ, His perfect human will distinct from the 
Divine, His perfect human activity distinct from 
the Divine. 

One more effort was made by the Orient to 
degrade the God-man, from the perfection of His 
two natures. That was the heresy which split the 
Church in twain. In the ninth century, Photius 
denied to the Son equality with the Father in the 
procession of the Holy Spirit. He w~as con- 
demned. The Church infallibly taught the equal- 
ity of Father and Son, the procession of the Holy 
Spirit from Father and Son as from one princi- 
ple. A schism resulted. The tear was mended 
for a century and a half. Then, in the middle of 
the eleventh century, under the Emperor Michael 
Caerularius, the party of Photius gained power 
again. Constantinople was wrenched from Rome. 
Since that time, the East has drifted on and on. 
But Rome has been absolutely firm and true to 
the Divinity of the Christ, to the perfect equality 
of the Son and the Father, to the perfect humanity 



6 



united with Divinity in the one Divine Person, 
Jesus the Christ. 

Since the great schism of the East, the way has 
been clear in the Catholic Church. We have ever 
believed, as we believe and teach to-day, in one 
Lord, one Divine Person, Jesus the Christ, whose 
human nature is perfect and whose Divine nature 
is perfect. That, in brief, is the answer of the 
traditional school. 

H. Proof. 

Immediately there occurs the question, "Father, 
why do you believe in the Divinity of Christ?" 
"I believe in the Divinity of Christ on the author- 
ity of God revealing." "But you just told us that 
it was the Council of Nicaea, the Council of Ephe- 
sus, the Council of Chalcedon, that was the motive 
of belief." "I did not." 

First Step. 

The motive of Divine faith is only one. The 
motive of Divine faith is only the authority of 
God revealing. On the authority of man you 
have no Divine faith. Infallible though the 
authority of the Catholic Church be in the teach- 
ing of faith and morals, it is not the motive of 
Divine faith. Only Divine authority can be the 
motive of Divine Faith. Only on Divine author- 
ity do we believe in the Divinity of Christ. There 
is the first step. We believe in the Divinity of 
Christ, because God reveals that truth to us. 



7 



Second Step. 

"But how do you know that God reveals to us 
the Divinity of Christ?" "I know that God re- 
veals the Divinity of Christ, because the Church 
teaches me that God reveals the Divinity of 
Christ." 

Third Step. 

"But, Father, the Church may err when she 
teaches that God reveals the Divinity of Christ." 
I answer : "The Church may not err in faith and 
morals ; because she is infallible in faith and 
morals." There are the three steps we take in 
answering fully the question, "What think ye of 
Christ" ? 

"What think I of Christ?" "I believe He is 
God, on the authority of God revealing." "How 
do I know that the authority of God revealing 
teaches me the Divinity of Christ?" "Because 
the Catholic Church tells me so." "How do I 
kiiow that the Catholic Church is right in telling 
me so?" "Because she is infallible in faith and 
morals." So the doctrine of the Divinity of 
Christ comes down to the question of the infalli- 
bility of the Catholic Church. It will be neces- 
sary then, in order to complete our series of con- 
ferences on the Christ, to prove to you the infal- 
libility of the Church as our rule of faith. 

'8 



i 



III. The Infallibility of the Church. 

We have seen the actual results of the Pro- 
testant rule of faith ; the various schools of Chris- 
tology, in the great universities and seminaries 
of the sects, have given up belief in the Divinity 
of Christ. The Bible, the whole Bible, and noth- 
ing but the Bible, — with no support or stay, dang- 
ling in the air, — is no rule of faith whatsoever. 
For a rule is fixed in its measure ; and the unsup- 
ported Bible is made by Protestant Biblical schol- 
ars to be adaptable to any measure you please. 
The unsupported Bible of Protestant theologians 
is claimed as their support for the most blas- 
phemous, contraband, and contradictory theories 
in regard to the Christ. Among Catholic theolo- 
gians, things are altogether different. The infal- 
lible Church is a fixed rule of faith. It has 
resulted, down the centuries, in a oneness of 
teaching in regard to the Divinity of Christ. How 
then do we establish the infallibility of the Church 
without the Bible? 

No Bible. 

Because in this stage of our apologetic we have 
no Bible. The Bible, the collection of books which 
Luther set up as the be all and end all of the 
teachings of Christ, the sole depository of revealed 
truth, — this Bible was not in existence until the 
year 220 of our era. True, the separate books 
existed before that time. But the separate, dis- 



9 



united books were not the Bible, until some 
authority outside of each book brought them all 
together into one authoritative collection. More- 
over, the separated and disunited books did not 
exist until after the Church began to be. The 
Church began to be during the lifetime of Christ ; 
it was completed in its foundation by the time of 
His Ascension, — about 29 A. D. The Gospel of 
Matthew did not exist before 45 A. D. And the 
Gospel of John is assigned by such leading Pro- 
testants as Harnack of Berlin and Sanday of 
Oxford, to the period from 100-110 A. D. It is 
clear, then, that in this stage of our apologetic, — 
i.e., before we have the Church, — there is no 
Bible on which to found our acceptance of the 
Divinity of Christ. Unless the Church give me 
the Bible, and tell me that the Bible teaches the 
Divinity of Christ, I have no proof on which to 
ground my faith in this fundamental doctrine. 
How, then, do we establish the infallibility of the 
Church in her teaching of the Divinity of Christ? 

Only Historical Evidence. 

We start with four documents. They are called 
Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. We do not as- 
sume these documents as part of the Bible ; there 
is yet no Bible. We do not give to these docu- 
ments any Divine authority. We merely prove 
that these four works are historical documents, — 
worthy of acceptance by a prudent man as narra- 



10 



tives of fact, and not of fiction. That is the start 
of our Catholic apologetic. 

Now mind, I do not mean to say that this is the 
only proof of the infallibility of the Church. I 
mean to say that it is a proof which is very much 
used in the Catholic schools. It is a proof which 
holds to-day. In the early church', there was no 
such proof. In the early church, there were the 
miracles of our Saviour, the miracles of the Apos- 
tles, and the results of these miracles. Not so 
to-day ! 

To-day we start with four little books, — not 
with a Divine Book, but with human documents. 
We have no Divine Book until the Church gives 
it to us; and we have not yet the Church. We 
treat Matthew, Mark, Luke and John as historical 
documents. As historical documents they are 
worth more, — at least, are they worth as much, 
as any historical documents of their time. Let 
me prove that to you. 

In the School of Historical Evidence, we gauge 
the historical worth of a document, first, by text 
evidence ; secondly, by the evidence of versions ; 
and thirdly, by the evidence of use in other trust- 
worthy sources. Rated by these three standards, 
the four documents in question have an historical 
worth that is past all telling, — especially if con- 
trasted with any contemporaneous, profane liter- 
ature. 



11 



1st Text Evidence. 

Our four documents are backed up by manu- 
script evidence, which is overwhelmingly more 
effective and weighty than is the manuscript evi- 
dence of any historical profane document of the 
time. We have 2,467 Greek manuscripts of the 
original text of these four documents, which trace 
the text back to about A. D. 350. At that time 
the manuscripts called the Sinaitic and the Vati- 
can are admitted by all critics to have been writ- 
ten. The evidence of these 2,467 Greek manu- 
scripts shows us with historic certainty, that our 
documents have been accepted and respected as 
historical down the ages ; and have been sub- 
stantially the same since A. D. 350, that is, since 
240 years after John wrote. 

Thus far we have cited the evidence of the 
great, complete, — substantially complete, — manu- 
scripts of the four documents, — Matthew, Mark, 
Luke and John. We might add the weighty evi- 
dence of the fragments of John in the Archduke 
Rainer collection of papyri in Vienna. I have 
examined these fragments. Students of epi- 
graphy, — the science of ancient scripts, — agree 
that these selections from John cannot be assigned 
to a date later than the beginning of the 3rd cen- 
tury, — i.e., to about ninety years after the death 
of John. Still, these early portions of the Gos- 
pels are fragments. So we waive them. We 



12 



are arguing not from any fragmentary evidence ; 
but from historical evidence of our four docu- 
ments substantially as they are in our original 
Greek text of to-day. 

If we compare these two wonderful manu- 
scripts, the Sinaitic and the Vatican of about A. 
D. 350, we find that, although they substantially 
agree, still there are minor differences which can- 
not have taken place in less than a generation, — 
say thirty years. The text of the four Gospels, 
we know from history, was so respected, that we 
must allow, at the very least, thirty years for the 
changes and vicissitudes that led up to the acci- 
dental differences noted in the Sinaitic and Vati- 
can codices. They therefore point to an archetype 
Greek original text that cannot have been tater 
than A. D. 320. 

Thus far, then, merely by considering our 
2,467 Greek manuscripts of the four documents, 
we find them admitted as of historical worth from 
A. D. 320 until to-day. Let us now turn to the 
versions. They give us an historical evidence 
which brings us back with certainty to a text even 
earlier than A. D. 320. 

2nd. Evidence of Versions. 

We have more than 8,000 Latin manuscripts, 
which bring us down to a version of these four 
documents made by St. Jerome in A. D. 383. 
This version of St. Jerome was a revision of the 



13 



Old Latin version; and the Old Latin version 
was carefully used by St. Cyprian in the middle 
of the third century, by Tertullian in A. D. 181- 
189, by the Scillitan martyrs of Carthage in A. D. 
180. This use of the Old Latin by these early 
Fathers, together with twenty-six manuscripts 
we have of the Old Latin version, force critics to 
admit that this version was made about 150 of 
our era, that is to say, about 40 years after John 
died. And this most important second century 
I text, bearing witness to a Greek text in use about 
forty years after the death of John, is substantial- 
ly the same as is the Latin Vulgate of St. Jerome, 
witnessed to by more than 8,000 manuscripts. 
There are accidental variations in the readings of 
St. Jerome from the Old Latin readings ; but the 
fundamental facts, and the important statements 
which we use in our apologetic, are all guaran- 
teed by the overwhelming evidence of the two 
Latin versions, — they witness to the use of our 
four documents as historical from forty years 
after the death of John until to-day. 

Now compare this second century text of the 
Latin Church with the fourth century text of the 
Byzantine Church. 

By comparing the Greek manuscripts, which 
bring us down to within 210 years of John's death, 
with the Latin version, which brings us down to 
about 40 years after John's death, we find the 
text is substantially the same ; and there are acci- 

14 



dental differences, pointing to an earlier arche- 
type text. This brings us to about say fifteen 
years earlier, — that is to about 135 A. D. 

Another important version makes our historical t 
evidence even stronger. The Syrian church trans- 
lated these four documents into Syriac about the 
year, 150 of our era. Critics all admit that from 
about 40 years after John died these documents 
were in Syriac translation, substantially as we 
find them in the Sinaitic manuscript called Aleph, 
and in the Vatican manuscript called B. 

Now put these facts together. In A. D. 150, 
the Latin and the Syrian churches admitted our 
four documents to be historical ; and had their 
own translation from the original Greek text. 
These two translations, made 40 years after the 
death of John, agree substantially. But they 
disagree in accidental matters, and show that they 
were made from archetype Greek manuscripts 
that disagreed in these accidentals. To explain 
the accidental differences between these Greek 
manuscripts, from which were translated the Old 
Latin and Old Syriac Versions, we must allow 
at least fifteen years. We now have a text of A. 
D. 135, we are thus within twenty-five years of 
John's death. But these two versions, — the Old 
Latin and Old Syriac, — which bring us to an 
historical text of A. D. 135, agree in many acci- 
dentals in which they disagree from the Greek 



15 



text Aleph B, — a text that we have tracked down 
to A. D. 320. Therefore, we must hold to an 
archetype Greek text at least fifteen years earlier 
than the previous text. We now have it that in 
A. D. 120, or ten years after the death of John, 
the text of the four Gospels was admitted to be 
historical by the Church substantially as that text 
now is. 

J</. Evidence of Patristic Use. 

The evidence of the manuscripts of the origi- 
nal text of these documents, and of the versions 
made therefrom by the Latin and Syriac Churches 
is enough fully to establish the fact that these 
documents have been received as historical, sub- 
stantially as "we have them to-day, from the days 
of their writing until now. It would take too 
long to give the third class of evidence of this 
historic acceptance. Suffice it to say that our 
three documents of Matthew, Mark and Luke 
are used as authoritative by St. Clement of Rome, 
A. D. 93-95 ; St. Ignatius of Antioch, A. D. 110- 
117 ; St. Polycarp of Smyrna, about A. D. 117. 
And witnesses of the historical worth of all four 
documents are St. Justin the Martyr, A. D. 138- 
145; St. Irenaeus, A. D. 180-189; Tatian's har- 
mony in Syriac, A. D. 170 ; and a host of writers 
thereafter. 



16 



Contrast With Profane Documents. 

Now lay that idea aside. Come to the profane 
works. Every man nowadays admits, as histori- 
cal documents, the writings of Caesar, Livy, 
Thucydides, Demosthenes. The writings of 
Sophocles, Aeschylus, Plato, Euripides, Aristo- 
phanes are without any hesitation assigned to the 
times, — indeed, to the authors those writings are 
named after. What manuscript right have we 
to accept as authentic the writings of these Greek 
and Latin historians? What manuscripts testify 
to us that we do not err in regard to the works 
we assign to the time of, — indeed, to the 
very writers, Sophocles, Aeschylus, Aristophanes, 
Plato, Euripides ? Here is an astounding com- 
parison. We have of 

Aeschylus, 50 manuscripts, all incomplete ; 
Sophocles, 100 manuscripts, of which only 

seven are good ; 
Catullus, 3 manuscripts, all from a fourteenth 

century archetype ; 
Euripides, Cicero, Virgil, several hundreds. 
Over against these, set more than 12,000 manu- 
scripts of the four Gospels, of which almost 2,500 
are manuscripts of the original Greek, — all. sub- 
stantially in agreement. 

Again, the very best manuscript authority ,-foi 
Euripides, is 1,600 years later than the 
author ; 



17 



Sophocles, Aeschylus, Aristophanes and Thu- 

cydides, — 1,400 years later ; 
Plato— 1,300 years later; 
Demosthenes, — 1,200 years later; 
Lucretius, — 1,000 years later; 
Horace, 900 years later, &c, &c. 

Over against these manuscripts, so many cen- 
turies later than the works, the authenticity of 
which they are our best guarantee, — set the man- 
uscripts for our four documents. The Greek 
manuscripts bring us down to within 240 years of 
the works themselves. The translations bring us 
down to about 40 years from the works them- 
selves. And if we compare the substantially iden- 
tical versions of the Latin Church and the Syriac 
Church with these Greek manuscripts, we criti- 
cally reach a text that existed about ten years 
after the writing of John's Gospel. The contrast 
between the manuscript evidence for profane 
works, and the manuscript evidence for our four 
documents is simply overwhelming. 

Now no prudent man ever thinks of denying 
those profane works to the authors they are as- 
signed to. No prudent man ever dares to deny 
the historical worth of the main outlines of the 
writings of Caesar, Livy and Demosthenes. 
Therefore, in the name of sanity and prudence, no 
man has the right to deny the historical worth 
in substance of these four documents. There is 



18 



the first step in our proof of the infallibility of the 
Church. 

We establish these four documents as substan- 
tially historical. They are worthy of historical 
acceptance, else we have to throw over the sub- 
stantial historicity of the writings of Caesar, Livy 
and Demosthenes. We have to say that all the 
profane writings of the time are forgeries, and 
not worthy of any historical credence. 

Now what do we mean by historical credence? 
The historic worth of Caesar means this, that 
there was a Caesar, that he went to Gaul, that 
he fought the Gauls, that he fought the Aedui, 
and the Belgae and others. There is no need to 
believe him in little details. There is no need to 
believe him if you have a prudent reason to re- 
fuse belief, when he says: "Quorum fortissimi 
sunt Belgae," — that, in his time, "the bravest of 
all were the Belgians." But in general, along the 
great lines, in the substance of his history, no 
prudent man can deny the historical worth of 
Caesar, De Bello Gallico; because it has been 
admitted for centuries by prudent people. 

In like manner, indeed, a fortiori, — in a strong- 
er manner, for greater reason, — no prudent man 
can deny the historic worth of these four docu- 
ments in their substance, in their main outline. 
What then is the main outline of these four his- 
torical documents ? To what chief historical facts 



19 



do they bear witness? What are those facts, 
which even the casual reader of these documents 
takes note of, — facts that he undoubtedly admits 
by his acceptance of the documents as historical ? 

Main Historical Facts Proved by These 
Documents. 

First, there was an historical person named 
Jesus. He said he had a message from God the 
Father to give to all the world. This is evident. 

Second, He prophesied His Resurrection; and 
appealed to the Resurrection in proof of the truth 
of His claim, that He was the Ambassador of God 
the Father, and that He had from God the Father 
a message for the world. This fact is clear to any 
reader of the documents. 

Third, He arose from the dead to fulfill His 
prophecy in proof of the truth of His claim to the 
Divine Ambassadorship, to the message from the 
Father, and to the right to give that message 
to the world. This fact is denied only by those 
who start by throwing out of court miracle^, 
prophecies and all the supernatural elements of 
religion. Without any proof, save their own 
inner consciousness, they cull from the documents 
those sayings of Jesus which have nothing to do 
with His mission and call them the Gospel ; they 
carve out all the facts that have to do with the 
main purpose of our documents, and call these the 
evolution of the Christian conscience. If you 



20 



press them for a reason, none can they give unless 
that reason which Shakespeare makes one of the 
Tzvo Gentlemen of Verona ungallantly to assign 
to a much abused half of the human race : 

"I have no other but a woman's reason ; 
I think it so, because I think it so." 2 

To judge by attendance at church, women as 
a class have a much better reason, in matters of 
faith, the most important matters in the world, 
than have men as a class. But these higher 
critics, — they are the ones who, in matters of 
faith, have no reason at all. Their one canon 
of belief, — rather, of disbelief, — is simply this: 
"I think it so, because I think it so!" They call 
themselves higher critics, because, forsooth, they 
occupy a vantage ground of scientific outlook,— 
a higher place from which to judge, — than do the 
lower critics. These humbler critics have for 
nearly nineteen centuries striven to find out what 
the text of our documents really was ; the higher 
critics now strive to find out, not what the origi- 
nal text of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John really 
was, but what it might, could, would or should 
have been, had they been the authors. They need 
the antitoxin treatment against insincerity of 
scientific conscience. Were they sincere, they 
would leave Christianity and become Buddhists, 

2 Act I, Scene 2. 



21 



Muhammedans or Christian Scientists, — they 
would be anything but Christless Christians. 
Waiving these garblers of the documents, and 
taking Matthew, Mark, Luke and John as the 
historical documents which we have demonstrated 
them to be, we say that the clearest fact they 
establish is the Resurrection of Jesus from the 
dead to fulfill His prophesy in proof of the truth 
of His claim to the Divine Ambassadorship, to a 
message from His Father, and to the right to give 
that message to the world. 

Lastly, both before and after His Resurrection, 
Jesus consigned, He conveyed to others the same 
message which He had from God the Father, and 
the right to give that message to the world. He 
consigned that message unto a teaching body, 
which He said was Infallible, Indefectible, One, 
Holy, Catholic, Apostolic, Petrine. 

You notice, there is nothing about a Book in 
our apologetic. I have often told you, there was 
no Book until long after the consignment of the 
doctrines of Christ to a teaching body. 

We shall now prove that Christ consigned to a 
body of living teachers the very same message 
which He had from God the Father; and gave to 
that living body of teachers the right to hand 
down His message to all the world; and made 
that teaching body to be Infallible, Indefectible, 
One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic, Petrine. 



22 



What now follows is not a full, scientific treat- 
ment of apologetic. Such scientific treatment 
would require hours of argumentation. And yet 
without hours of argumentation, you may grasp 
quite enough of our apologetic to convince a 
thinking man of the overwhelming logic of the 
Catholic position in the defense of the Divinity of 
Christ. 

We go at once to our historical documents, — ■ 
the source of our historical information in this, 
matter. I translate from the original Greek of 
the documents. 

There is no need to establish the fact that Jesus 
claimed to have a message from His Father. Ac- 
cording to the witness of John alone, Jesus made 
this claim thirty-two times. He again and again 
insisted, "My teaching is not mine but His Who 
sent me." 3 And it was this very same message 
that Jesus consigned to a living teaching body. 
"As the Father hath sent me, so I send you." 4 
This living teaching body He made to be Infalli- 
ble, Indefectible, One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic, 
Petrine. How shall we establish these qualities 
that belong to the living teaching body which 
Jesus gave to the world ? 

The Teaching Body Infallible. 

First, this teaching body is infallible ; it cannot 
err in handing down the message of Jesus to the 

3 John 7:16. * John 20 



23 



world. To prove this essential attribute of 
Christ's teaching body, the following facts, given 
by Matthew and Mark, are of paramount im- 
portance : 

1°. Just before His Ascension, Jesus appeared 
to the eleven apostles in Galilee and said to them : 

"All power hath been given me in heaven and 
upon earth. Therefore go ye, make disciples of 
all nations, baptise them in the name of the Father 
and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, teach 
them to observe all things whatsoever I have 
commanded you. And, lo, I am with you all days, 
even to the end of the world." 5 

2°. On the very point of ascending into 
heaven from Mt. Olivet, Jesus once again gave 
this solemn message to the same body of teachers : 

"Go ye to all the world, preach the Gospel' to 
all creation. He that believeth and is baptised, 
shall be saved. He that believeth not, shall be 
damned." 0 

From these historical incidents, related by our 
documents, we may deduce much of what we have 
undertaken to prove. Notice the solemnity of the 
scene. "All power hath been given me in heaven 
and upon earth." Something most important is 
to follow. The faith of the world will be put to 
the test. Therefore the world is told that "all 
power is Christ's." With this all-power, He pro- 



6 Mt. 28:18-20. 6 Mk. 16:15-16. 

24 



ceeds to make His living body of teachers to he 
infallible. 

The mission of this teaching body, as here 
given, is threefold. First, "make ye disciples of 
all nations" ; secondly, "baptise them" ; thirdly, 
after baptism, "teach them." What? Whatso- 
ever they have a mind to ? No, not by any means ! 
"Teach them to observe all things whatsoever I 
have commanded you." They are not to go be- 
yond the range of His message to the world. And 
He, the Ambassador of the Father, will be ever 
at hand to prevent them from error. They will 
be infallible in this teaching. It is a deposit en- 
trusted to them to have, and to hold and to hand 
down without error, to all nations even to the end 
of the world. "Lo, I am with you all days, even 
to the end of the world." 

Moreover, Christ made acceptance of the mes- 
sage of that teaching body the condition of salva- 
tion ; and rejection of that teaching body the con- 
dition of damnation. "He that believeth,' shall be 
saved; He that believeth not, shall be damned."' 
In view of His Divine Ambassadorship of the 
Father, He could not have given such extraordi- 
nary power to any body of teachers that was falli- 
ble. If that teaching body could err in handing 
down His message, denial of His message would 
be a condition of salvation ; and acceptance of His 
message would be a condition of damnation. That 



25 



were impossible, unspeakable. For "as the Father 
hath sent me, so I send you." Therefore, He made 
that teaching body infallible. 

This is a most momentous part of our apolo- 
getic. So I drive it home again. This ending of 
the sixteenth chapter of St. Mark deserves your 
closest attention. Jesus, the Divine Ambassador 
of the Father, made the teaching 1 of that teaching 
body, with whose message He will be to the end 
of the world, the only condition of salvation. 
Hence that teaching body must be Infallible. He 
could not allow it to err! He could not do that, 
since His message was from the Father, and He 
had risen from the dead in proof of that message. 
We have established then, that that teaching body 
must be Infallible. It cannot err, because if it 
erred, according to Christ's word, the acceptance 
of its error would be an absolutely necessary con- 
dition of salvation, — "He that believeth shall be 
saved," — and the denial of its error would be the 
condition of an inevitable damnation, — "he that 
believeth not, shall be damned !" 

The Teaching Body Indefectible. 

Second, as Divine Ambassador, Jesus made that 
teaching body to be Indefectible. It must exist 
to-day ; it will exist forever. "Lo, I am with you 
all days even to the end of the world." Again, 
at Caesarea Philippi, Jesus asked His disciples : 
"Who do men say that the Son of Man is?" 



26 



Then it was that Peter made his great act of 
faith : 'Thou are the Christ, the Son of the Liv- 
ing God!" The Christ made answer, "Thou art 
Peter; and upon this rock I shall build my Church., 
and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against 
it." 7 The gates of Hell shall not prevail against 
that teaching body : it is Indefectible. 

When Newman was a little boy, he said to his 
mother, "Mother, what Church is the oldest 
Church?" "Oh, the Roman Catholic Church is 
the oldest Church." "And why is the Roman 
Catholic Church not the true Church ?" "Because 
it left the truth in the fifth century." "Oh then, 
mother, the gates of Hell prevailed against it, 
didn't they?" 

The gates of Hell shall not prevail against that 
Church. If they did, the Divine Ambassador 
would be false in His message from God the 
Father. He cannot be false in this. The false- 
hood would be set to God's blame. There is no 
falsehood. The teaching body is Indefectible. It 
exists to-day! 

Now let us come to the four qualities of the 
teaching body which we call notes. The qualities 
of which we have spoken, Infallibility and Inde- 
fectibility, are so essential, that they are called 
the attributes of this teaching body. The four re- 
maining qualities we call notes, — marks that are 
the visible characteristics of this teaching body. 

7 Matthew 16:18. 

27 



The Teaching Body One. 

First it must be One, Christ did not say, 
""Go, follow Henry the Eighth, when he throws 
over the jurisdiction of the Pope" ; and at the 
same time contradict Himself and say "Go, fol- 
low the Pope of Rome." That teaching body 
must be one in jurisdiction. Christ did not say 
"Follow the New York Presbytery ; deny the 
Virgin birth of Jesus; deny the physical Resur- 
rection of the Saviour" ; and at the same time 
contradict Himself by saying: "Be a Catholic; 
believe in the Virgin birth and the Resurrection." 
That teaching body must be one in doctrine. Be- 
cause its doctrine is the message from the Father 
unto Christ. "As the Father hath sent me, so I 
send you." 8 Its doctrine is the message of Christ 
to the world. "All power is given to me in heaven 
and on earth. Therefore, go ye, make disciples of 
all nations ... teach them to observe all things 
whatsoever I have commanded you." 9 Its doc- 
trine is the condition of salvation. "He that be- 
lieveth shall be saved, he that believeth not shall 
be damned.'- 10 That doctrine must be one, 

The Teaching: Body Holy. 

Second mark: That teaching body must be 
Holy. Because it is founded by Christ to teach 
His doctrines, and only His doctrines. These doc- 

8 Jo. 20:21. 9 Matthew 28:18, 19. 10 Mark .16:16. 



28 



trines must be Holy. That teaching body cannot 
deny the miracles of the Lord, cannot degrade the 
Lord to the low grade of a dupe., — as do the An- 
gelican clergyman Lake of Harvard, the Lutheran 
clergyman Schweitzer of Strassbourg, and others. 
Holiness must be the mark of that teaching body, 
with which is the holy Divine Ambassador "all 
days even till the end of the world." 

The Teaching- Body Catholic. 

Third mark: That teaching body must be 
Catholic. "Go teach all nations !" "I will be with, 
you all days!" It is not founded in 1520 by 
Luther, for some Germans; not founded in 1534, 
by Henry VIII, for England; not founded in 
1560, by John Knox, for Scotland; not founded 
in 1606, by John Smith, for scores of kinds of 
Baptists; not founded in 1739, by John Wesley, 
for scores of kinds of Methodists. No, ten thous- 
and times, no ! That teaching body is founded 
by Christ for all times and all nations. "Go, 
make ye disciples of all nations !" "I am with you 
all days even to the end of the world." That, 
teaching body is Catholic, Universal ! 

The Teaching Body Apostolic. 

fourth mark: That teaching body must be 
Apostolic, founded on the Apostles. Because 
those were the Apostles to whom the message 
was given by Jesus the Christ. 



29 



That teaching body must be Petrine, — founded 
on Peter. Now pay strict heed ! This is a 
note of the teaching body, which supplements 
the mark of Apostolicity. The body of teachers, 
which was founded by Christ, to have and to hold 
and to hand down His teaching till the end of 
time, must be Petrine. It must be founded on 
Peter. 

How do we prove that? At Caesarea Philippi, 
on the occasion we have just described, the Christ 
rewarded the faith of Simon, Son of John, by 
setting him as foundation stone to the Apostolic 
body of teachers : "Thou art Kefa." He did not 
say, "Thou art Peter." He said, "Thou art 
Kefa," which means a rock, "and upon this 
Kefa, — this rock, — I shall build my Church." 
We cannot understand the force of the Christ's 
meaning, in our English, "Thou are Peter, and 
upon this rock I shall build my Church." Clearer 
is the meaning in the Greek and Latin versions of 
St. Matthew 16 :18. The Greek Matthew reads : 
"Thou art Petros and upon this Petra shall I 
build my Church." The Latin translation has it: 
"Thou are Petrus and upon this Petra shall I 
build my Church," French is the only one of our 
well known languages, that has preserved the 
same word to mean both Peter and Rock, — "Tu 
es Pierre, et sur cette pierre je batirai mon 
eglise." That is the only sane, germane interpre- 
tation of these words. The new name, Kefa, 



30 



given to Simon, meant Rock ; for he was made 
to be the rock, on which this teaching body was 
builded by the Christ. Hence it is, we find in the 
Syriac translation, the Christian Aramaic, the 
words of Jesus are preserved: "Thou art Kefa, 
and upon this Kefa, shall I build my Church ; and 
the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." 
That teaching body must be built on Kefa, on the 
Rock, on Peter, not on the Bible ! There was no 
Bible to build on, until nearly 200 years later; 
and then that Bible was given out by the Petrine 
teaching body. That Apostolic body must be 
Petrine, else the Christ erred, when He said : 
"Thout art Kefa and upon this Kefa I shall build 
my Church." 

Summary. 

To sum up, then, the Divine Ambassador of 
God the Father, Jesus the Christ, has consigned 
to a living body of teachers that message which 
he received from the Heavenly Father. This 
living body of teachers He has made to have two 
essential attributes and four visible marks, — it 
must be Infallible and Indefectible— One, Holy, 
Catholic and Apostolic, — yea, Petrine. 

Find That Teaching Body. 

Now find that body of teachers. It is Inde- 
fectible! It must exist to-day! Is there any 
teaching body to-day that dares claim these 
essential attributes, and these four marks — espe- 

31 



5 



cially the last, the Petrine? As I said, I now say 
again, that teaching body must exist. It is Inde- 
fectible. It will exist until time is no more. Is 
there any teaching body that claims to be Inde- 
fectible, Infallible, One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic, 
— -even Petrine? There is only one Church that 
has ever dared, or will ever dare claim to be such ; 
and that is the Catholic teaching body, the great 
force that to-day welds into one faith seventeen 
million out of forty-five million in the United 
States, who admit to the census taker that they 
have any religion whatsoever. 

When I think of the great body of Protestant 
Professors of Scripture, Theology and Philos- 
ophy, teaching their vagaries in Harvard with 
Lake, Royce, Hocking; in Yale with Bacon; in 
the Union Theological Seminary, with the Presi- 
dent Brown and the rest of the Professors ; in the 
Baptist Chicago University with Burton, Smith 
and Foster ; way out in California University with 
Gayley and the Moravian Bade ; when I note with 
horror that the very leaders of Protestantism, in 
our great non-Catholic Universities and important 
Protestant seminaries everywhere (with very few 
exceptions) in the United States, have given up 
the Divinity of Christ; when I think of all the 
Lutheran faculties in Germany, all the Calvanistic 
faculties in Switzerland, gone hopelessly away, 
boastfully so, gone of set purpose away from the 



32 




Divinity of Christ; when I see Oxford and Cam- 
bridge with Chairs of Divinity filled by men who 
deny the Divinity of Christ, — men like Canon 
Sanday, Lady Margaret Professor of Divinity in 
Oxford, and Canon Inge, Lady Margaret Pro- 
fessor of Divinity in Cambridge; and contrast 
these men with our Catholic Professors, a picture 
occurs to my mind, which I saw in the National 
Gallery in London about ten years ago. It is 
entitled "The Unknown God" and is the work of 
a modern, — Gotze. 

The Christ is fast to a pillar, stripped, bleeding, 
crowned with thorns. On the pedestal of the 
pillar is the inscription "To the Unknown God," 
"Ignoto Deo." 

The allusion is to St. Paul's preaching on the 
Areopagus, the Acropolis of Athens. There he 
told the Athenians, they believed in an unknown 
God. From the worship of the Unknown God, 
Paul strove to lead the Athenians to believe in 
Jesus, the known God. Were St. Paul to come 
to the world to-day, the scene he would witness 
would be such as Gotze has depicted. 

The world passes by, and it has not a glance 
for the unknown God ; it has washed its hands of 
the Christ, even as Pilate did long ago. 

There is the sport, in his home spun plaid; a 
smile is on his face. He beams, as he reads the 
sporting extra. With his crop he slaps his 



3.3 



puttees, as he bowls along. He gloats over the 
victory of some favorite of the turf. He gleams ; 
for he gleans by that victory ! He does not look 
at the Christ. A horse is more to him than is the 
Christ! He has washed his hands of the un- 
known God ! 

There is the lady in her satins. By her side 
is the dandy. She flirts with a lorgnette ; he 
fillips a cigarette. He leers and lures and allures. 
She smiles and smirks and perks. Neither he nor 
she has a look for Christ. A lorgnette is more to 
her ; a. cigarette is more to him than is the Christ. 
They have washed their hands of the unknown 
God. 

There goes the newsboy with his extra. There 
sits a f orlorn, lovelorn woman, in rags and tatters, 
holding in her arms a sickly babe in less than rags 
and tatters. Neither has a look of trust or of 
faith in the Christ. Even they, that need Him 
so, have washed their hands of the unknown God. 

And there struts the minister of the Gospel, — 
the type of our Protestant University professors 
of the Gospel, — there he struts. In his hands is 
a great big Book. With all the dignity and self- 
importance of his class, he walks along. His 
head is buried in the Book. His eyes are all for 
the Hebrew roots of the Book. He has no look 
of faith and worship for the Christ! Why, a 
Hebrew root is more to him than is Christ. He, 



34 



too, the minister of the gospel of Christ, — the 
Professor of Scripture, — the educator of ministers 
of the gospel of Christ, he, too, — God help us ! — 
has washed his hands of the unknown God. 

Oh, I thank God with all my soul that I belong 
to a church that is Indefectible, Infallible, tyranni- 
cal in its Infallibility and Indefectibility ; and 
will never allow me to swerve one inch from the 
belief in Jesus, the Christ, very Man and very 
God, now and forever. 



I 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 




0 027 261 243 2 



Hollinger Corp. 
pH 8.5 



